The state of paralysis and complete incoherence of the ruling
regime in Lebanon is not only due to the abysmal quality of the political class,
but also to the poor quality of the Lebanese political system based on the Taef
Agreement which converted the Presidential system into a polycephalic system.

Since 1989, we have been warning against the dangers of this
agreement and its negative repercussions on Lebanese political life, but
everyone rushed to support it from the standpoint of their own selfish interests
until the country finds itself today in this huge impasse from which it is
virtually impossible to get out.

They claim that there was a consensus by the Lebanese people over
Taef, and they continue to repeat this claim at every occasion, when the facts
are that the Lebanese people had no opinion whatsoever on this agreement and the
consensus was by a handful of former parliamentarians who had lost their
representative quality after they renewed their own term five times and could
not at that point truly represent the people.

They also claim that the Taef Agreement had ended the “civil” war
in Lebanon and they still repeat this asinine idea to this day, when the truth
is completely otherwise. First, the war was not a civil war, and second, the war
ended because of the Syrian invasion of the Eastern regions on October 13, 1990
and the elimination of the Lebanese Resistance, allowing for a complete control
of Lebanon by Syria.

They also claim that this agreement had returned a balance to the
constitutional institutions, when the fact is that it caused a deep rift in
those institutions, particularly at the level of the three presidencies, it
further inflamed – rather than reduced – sectarian and confessional conflicts as
we see today, and it created an oligarchic system, later labeled as the ruling
troika, not to mention the fact that it formally established the Syrian
interference in Lebanese affairs. And speaking of Syria, it must be noted that
Syria was the godfather of that agreement in the person of its vice-president
then, who oversaw every word in the drafting of its provisions. This confirms
that the Taef Agreement lacks credibility at its foundation since the inimical
and hostile nature of the Syrian regime towards Lebanon prevents it from
agreeing to any proposition that seeks the highest interests of the Lebanese
people.

Today, after the Taef Agreement has failed in all respects some
voices have begun calling for what we called for 17 years ago. This is a
positive step and we hope it will grow with an increasing number of voices
opposing the Taef Agreement so that they become with time an effective majority
that is capable of making the required amendments to it and laying the
foundations for sound governance.

We reiterate our position that the ideal solution is a return to
the Basic Constitution after enacting amendments separating church from state
and establishing a secular state in Lebanon.